U.S. v. Stewart is dead in the water. A federal law against carrying machineguns into state courthouses might be unconstitutional, because carrying something around isn't [yet] considered to be commerce [by the supremes], but manufacture of goods is, and thus can be regulated sayeth the majority of the 9 black-robed clowns in D.C.
Wildalaska, in your studies, you may wish to return to the text of the Constitution, which sayeth thusly:
Quote:
|
[Congress has the power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
|
In 1789, the word "regulate" did not mean "ban or do whatever else we feel like," though the word has taken on that meaning today. The dictionary definition of "commerce" does not include manufacture/production of goods, as the term "economics" does; the fact that the majority quoted the definition of "economics" in their decision shows that they are not able to comprehend differences in meaning among quasi-synonyms (if the were real synonyms, they would have more similar definitions). Commerce is limited to buying and selling. Even if something affects commerce (and just about everything does, including the phase of the moon), it cannot be constitutionally regulated unless it
is commerce.
The commerce clause when written was intended to prevent states from setting up import/export monopolies, tariffs, and things of that nature that could give states an economic advantage over other states, or that could be used vindictively to hurt other states. It was not meant to be a hammer the federal government could use to smash any commercial transactions they didn't like.
Federal jurisprudence is completely out of control, and the fact that anyone, particularly intelligent people, accept it at all is a sign of how intellectually bankrupt society has become.